Republican Presidential Candidates

[Ziner]

What a disaster. Good to see it though. That will hopefully be the final nail.

[Orenthal]

Where Perry's 10% goes will be interesting. I can only see it going to Cain or Gingrich. At this point I would pay for it to go to Gingrich, who while sometimes a prickly pear, is intelligent on the issues. Cain has a cult of personality and business-like ideas, but he just isn't quick/smart enough to answer non-scripted questions. While you may have time to deliberate and gain consensus once President, you have to get elected first. A three-way front runner will force the best to the top. Mitt, just seems forever at 23%...

[swerb]

Romney is gonna be the candidate. And then, as he has done in just about every election he's been in, will lose to Obama. Take it to the bank.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

The fact that anyone can look at Herman Cain, hear him speak, and go "that's the guy i'm voting for."..... is mind blowing. I've never seen anyone so cavalier about lying and being ignorant while running for POTUS.

The GOP field is like a freak show. This is just going to funnier.

[FUDU]

The fact that anyone can look at Herman Cain, hear him speak, and go "that's the guy i'm voting for."..... is mind blowing. I've never seen anyone so cavalier about lying and being ignorant while running for POTUS.

The GOP field is like a freak show. This is just going to funnier.

I've seen a guy more cavalier about lying, but he was already POTUS.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

From now on, DU... when you respond to me, please include one of my titles The High Commander or His Awesomeness.

[FUDU]

Sure will Mr. 6'10" Giant Oaf That Knows Jack Squat About Pie.

[leadpipe]

The fact that anyone can look at Herman Cain, hear him speak, and go "that's the guy i'm voting for."..... is mind blowing. I've never seen anyone so cavalier about lying and being ignorant while running for POTUS.

The GOP field is like a freak show. This is just going to funnier.

My favorite is his abortion take. And I'm not a "lie in front of a bus" type of guy on this topic, but to hear Cain say he's against abortion, but it's the woman's choice is fantastic.

Pretty much defines modern politics for me.

[Orenthal]

^Exactly. The businessman non-politician straight talker? hurumph.

[e0y2e3]

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.co ... -has-come/

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Another Cain success. This is just painful to watch. You can actually see him trying formulate his response in his head so it sounds like he has some general clue to what the fuck he's talking about...... which he doesn't.

[Orenthal]

^Yup, off the Cain train. Vetted, and yikes, on to Newt.

[swerb]

Coming next, the assault on Newt. Get ready for two weeks of coverage of Newt divorcing his wife on her deathbed and people picking his lengthy voting record on the House floor.

[mistero]

My favorite is his abortion take. And I'm not a "lie in front of a bus" type of guy on this topic, but to hear Cain say he's against abortion, but it's the woman's choice is fantastic.

Pretty much defines modern politics for me.

Is it too much to understand you can oppose something personally but realize other people have the right to feel differently? America's greater good versus your personal dogma. I'm against organized religion but if I was elected I wouldn't start closing churches. I don't smoke pot but wouldn't oppose it's legalization.I think complete gun control would be a good idea but I know how most Americans have a different view point. There is utility in holding personal viewpoints with out having to shove them down anyone's throat.

[danwismar]

Coming next, the assault on Newt. Get ready for two weeks of coverage of Newt divorcing his wife on her deathbed and people picking his lengthy voting record on the House floor.

It is pretty amazing (and a testament to the dishonesty of his political enemies) that this narrative is conventional wisdom about Newt.

In fact, his wife was the one who had requested the divorce...before her hospital stay...and Newt went there to take the kids to see her. The procedure she had done was for a tumor that turned out to be benign, and she is still alive.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good juicy smear?

[HoodooMan]

A good juicy smear.

HeheheheHeheheheh...

[Orenthal]

My favorite is his abortion take. And I'm not a "lie in front of a bus" type of guy on this topic, but to hear Cain say he's against abortion, but it's the woman's choice is fantastic.

Pretty much defines modern politics for me.

Is it too much to understand you can oppose something personally but realize other people have the right to feel differently?

Sure that is fantastic, and I agree with that POV. To me there are very few circumstances where abortion should be an option, but as of now its legal, and how can I tell a woman she can't when its legal? Cain's initial response was nuanced in such a manner, but the media realized he goofed on the orthodoxy of social conservatism and prodded further. Cain realizing the same, goes into overwhelming recovery mode providing 18 different answers before finally settling on the no abortions ever ever orthodoxy.

Making mistakes, and not knowing things that underlings would handle the details on does bother me somewhat, but not enough to leave a canidate. Changing your answers to fit the orthodoxy tends to irritate me alot more. Cain has done this multiple times.

On this pause nonsense, eh, Obama had like 40 seconds of nonsense Summer of 2008. That's just how the game is played. Attack away.

[danwismar]

Great tweet today..."I was embarrassed by Herman Cain before it was cool"

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Coming next, the assault on Newt. Get ready for two weeks of coverage of Newt divorcing his wife on her deathbed and people picking his lengthy voting record on the House floor.

It is pretty amazing (and a testament to the dishonesty of his political enemies) that this narrative is conventional wisdom about Newt.

In fact, his wife was the one who had requested the divorce...before her hospital stay...and Newt went there to take the kids to see her. The procedure she had done was for a tumor that turned out to be benign, and she is still alive.

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a good juicy smear?

Of course the slimeballs in the GOP are going to use that against him. They're going to beat him over the head with it. And after that they'll call him an elitist because he spent hundreds of dollars at Tiffany's. Someone in Perry's camp started the Cain fiasco.

These candidates are all deeply flawed and the blood spilling has only just begun. We've got about 50,000 more fake debates and pointless straw polls.

[leadpipe]

My favorite is his abortion take. And I'm not a "lie in front of a bus" type of guy on this topic, but to hear Cain say he's against abortion, but it's the woman's choice is fantastic.

Pretty much defines modern politics for me.

Is it too much to understand you can oppose something personally but realize other people have the right to feel differently? America's greater good versus your personal dogma. I'm against organized religion but if I was elected I wouldn't start closing churches. I don't smoke pot but wouldn't oppose it's legalization.I think complete gun control would be a good idea but I know how most Americans have a different view point. There is utility in holding personal viewpoints with out having to shove them down anyone's throat.

Ahhhh, but you are allowed cause you aren't boxed in by "politics," which is to the point.

If Cain wasn't boxed in, perhaps his explanation would have had more clarity, instead, he bumbled around, talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Again, our political party system is a joke. It doesn't allow for straight, honest answers, this being an example.

[Orenthal]

^more concise, my point.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

It's being reported that Newt Gingrich does in fact eat babies. This is just coming over the wire. More to come.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

I've yet to hear a Republican candidate say how they'll fix the economy.

If only they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess.

[FUDU]

Um I'm pretty sure the Republican plan to fix the economy is to get BO out of office.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Um I'm pretty sure the Republican plan to fix the economy is to get BO out of office.

Yep. Because it's not like Republicans were in charge when it crashed.... or have done anything since then. Other than give tax breaks to their rich whore masters.

Republican voters are the only ones dumb enough to believe what they say.

Michelle Bachmann "Ohhh yaaah, i'll fix the economy, doncha know".

Bottom. Of. The. Barrel.

[e0y2e3]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/27/busin ... wanted=all

^ fix this please

[Orenthal]

Frick and Mellon used the same art loophole 80-90 years ago. At nearly 73,000 pages good luck.

[e0y2e3]

So your point is that it's okay for the rich to steal because they have forever?

A true Conservitard you are.

[Orenthal]

No, its wrong, but legal. They only change the rules when someone gets away with shit this egregious. So how do you fix a 73,000 page code? The filthy, idle, inherited rich create entire corporations with the express purpose of finding the loopholes. Mellon's father Thomas Mellon was of the belief that the 2nd generation would waste the wealth after it was created, maybe in the late 1800's early 1900's that was the case, not anymore. The IRS has no chance.

Close a loophole they find a new way, or manipulate the language of the fix. Lauder abused the death tax when it existed, so I just see fixing the existing code as impossible/part of the problem. How do you get more voluntary compliance is the point.

[e0y2e3]

Exactly, so reform tax law or tax the rich a ridiculous percentage of their income. Fuck, up it to 60%.

They want to play games, play games back.

We won't.

You'll support them doing it and people that make 30K paying for their gold dental floss though.

Calling it legal has NOTHING to do with the article I posted or my request to fix it. It's political pandering bullshit.

[e0y2e3]

Also, conservitard OJ, you did read the part where the top 400 tax payers in America payed an effective tax rate of 30% in 1995 and pay 18% today?

My dad is a blue collar union guy from NEO and pays 28%.

Your answer is, "WE JUST CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS!!!!"

Choke on dicks much?

[Orenthal]

Being legal and abused is the entire point of that article.

As is often the case with his activities, just beneath the surface was a shrewd use of the United States tax code.

are just one facet of a sophisticated tax strategy used to preserve a fortune that Forbes magazine says makes him the world’s 362nd wealthiest person.

I could keep going nearly every paragraph is an example of legal, but abused tax shelters.

At no point did I condone the behavior, but FDR tried to take Mellon to court over these things, make an example of the rich guy, and FDR lost. Because the shit was legal.

Any other points feed off the legal and abused theme. One is that most taxpayers can't take advantage of these loopholes.

“But the tax code shouldn’t allow the wealthy the kind of loopholes that let them, essentially, force other taxpayers to underwrite donations to their pet causes.”

Congrats that is the tax code. It's nothing but arbitrary progressive rates that mean nothing once pols start applying their special interests.

The other point is a couple of other rich guys are joining democrats complaining about the use of such loopholes. Loopholes the little guy can't take advantage of in a material way. Democrats had both houses and the prez, they smashed through healthcare (unpopular at the time), why not a reform of the tax code? Neither side cares to address this because those same rich line their pockets.

So we have established that the dems will lip service this, and the GOP are a bunch of limp dicks who lower rates and keep all the loopholes. Selling us that it is good to let the rich shelter their income and pay lower rates. It is probably one of their most duplicitous positions.

60% just won't do shit, these filthy rich have existed under more punishing rates then 60%. That rate will reduce the amount of income based rich between that level and the rest of us, but won't do much to the uber rich. Taxing cap gains too high also hurts too many legit businesses. I only see lower rates and 0 deductions as a solution. You pick the rates and whether we have cap gains, death tax, blah blah, I'll most likely agree.

[e0y2e3]

So again, your answer to my "fix it" and the articles "this is going to be a hot button issue" points is..... IT'S BEEN LEGAL FOR A LONG TIME AND THE DEMS SUCK!!!!!

Again, keep on choking on dick.

Your post above is exactly why something like OWS needs to happen and not fall apart, because that defeatist bullshit pandering is what is wrong with this country.

I'm asking for a solution, your answer is "the rich get to not pay taxes no matter what because the IRS book is really long"

[Orenthal]

Also, conservitard OJ, you did read the part where the top 400 tax payers in America payed an effective tax rate of 30% in 1995 and pay 18% today?

My dad is a blue collar union guy from NEO and pays 28%.

Your answer is, "WE JUST CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS!!!!"

Choke on dicks much?

Your dad is in the worst possible position. The not rich enough to be a friend of Republicans, and not poor enough to be a friend of Democrats. He and the vast majority of Americans in the 15-28% brackets are the ones that need help.

Dude your solutions are "fight back" and "fix this", slow the hyperbole.

[e0y2e3]

No, my solution is that we are approaching an election year and shit like this needs to be discussed amongst the masses (and the NYT just spoon fed it to the masses, you and I have known this is going on forever). After it becomes a major talking point amongst the masses it needs to be pushed onto our candidates.

You go on vetting how many asses Cain grabs and how bad his 9-9-9 is.

I'd rather talk about shit that is really fucking our broke ass country.

Then, once it is discussed (lord knows I have no fucking answers) I'll start thinking about if any of these cockstains are worth voting for.

And if they aren't maybe free thought will bring someone around next time.

Being a defeated limp dick never changed anything. It did make you a GWB cheerleader though.

[Ziner]

I'd rather talk about shit that is really fucking our broke ass country.

We have something like a 1.6 trillion dollar deficit which is constantly growing while staring down the barrel of trillions in unfunded liabilities, this is not what is "fucking" our country. Run the fucking numbers. Medicare, SS, Military and huge wholesale changes to taxes where the it isnt only the rich affected. Those are your four options, talking about rich sheltering 100 billion or so is pretty much like me throwing in 5 bucks to the salvation army bucket and talking about how I got serious towards ending poverty.

That is what is wrong with OWS and the general dialogue. No one has stepped up with a legit plan, everyone wants to bicker over tax cuts for the rich. Wonderful, tax them the 60% that was thrown out here, eliminate the entire military you are still short.

Thanks for stopping in to tell us what is really fucking our broke ass country, I for one feel enlightened.

[e0y2e3]

I never said OWS did anything correct.

I do however want you to go and compare the tax income difference between 30 and 18% for the top 400 tax payers.

You go ahead and turn a blind eye to that, but I can do math... it's a fuck of a lot of revenue.

Everything is broke, but the rich not paying their fair share is the top of the damn stream.

Seriously, do you and OJ even read what you write?

HAIL ROMNEY!!! <-- we're about two months from this being all you can post.

[Orenthal]

The NYT has done nothing. Who doesn't know the system is full of loopholes that the rich take advantage of? Your stat is all over the web. Everyone from Forbes to the WSJ to The Huffington Post to Michael Moore have spouted that stat off. They also spout of what the total tax burdens of each group, the top 1% pays 38% the bottom 50% close to 0%, that that 400 controls the same amount of wealth as the bottom 50% blah blah.

Cain and 999 are as dead as OWS. I'm not defeated, I'm just pointing out this isn't novel. The only way to solve this is a HUGE reform of the code not tinkering. Your doing a lot of fire breathing. This can only be done by the masses and only if they abandon the standard left/right talking points and ideology. OWS is straight left wing talking points. I'm all for smashing just about every loophole utilized by the rich and putting some major phase-outs on many deductions they abuse. I don't think that is a GOP talking point. I'm also in favor of stricter rates that bump that 18% back to the high 20's. At the same time the bottom 50% have to do a bit better then 0.

That is the only way we help those like your dad, shit me too.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

Oh boy, all the way up to the high 20's? Well aren't you merciful..... And exactly how much should the bottom 50% give?

[Orenthal]

If we were booming at 30% during the Clinton years I have a hard time pushing them much past that...

How about 5% for the total tax burden of the bottom 50%?

Also page 155 of http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc120 ... eficit.pdf shows how trivial this whole fight over revenues is in the larger picture.

*I have no problem with progressive rates (yikes) if they are meaningful.

[Ziner]

I never said OWS did anything correct.

I do however want you to go and compare the tax income difference between 30 and 18% for the top 400 tax payers.

You go ahead and turn a blind eye to that, but I can do math... it's a fuck of a lot of revenue.

Everything is broke, but the rich not paying their fair share is the top of the damn stream.

Seriously, do you and OJ even read what you write?

HAIL ROMNEY!!! <-- we're about two months from this being all you can post.

Make the top 1%'s tax rate 100%. It doesn't eliminate the deficit, you are still an entire military and wars away from closing the deficit, and that is with out any growth in entitlements which we know are going to get only more out of control. But apparently you can do the math.

Do you even read what you write? Just simmer down and stop with the bullshit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 83554.html

[FUDU]

There's no reason our tax code needs to be thousands of pages long, matter of fact it shouldn't even be as thick as the Constitution. Unfortunately the resistance to tax reform is strongest & usually ends up lost among other issues of diversion come election time.

IMO if OWS would have put most of their focus on tax reform (and been a bit more tactful in their approach) I think they could have attracted some real players to make some noise, instead we got what we got from them.

[Ziner]

I should probably say I am on board with tax code reform before e0y starts spouting off at the mouth again. I have already stated in this thread or another that lower rates and less deductions is what is going to need to happen. READ: Higher effective tax rates. It wont be done though because of the games you can play with it. Imagine the tar and feathering of a politician by the opposite party if they suggest elimination of the mortgage interest credit, child credit, student loan interest credit or charitable deductions. Have fun with that.

[FUDU]

IMO an individual should be taxed significantly less on their income and should have the vast majority of their outgoing tax payments through means of consumption taxes. IOW giving the individual tax payer much more control over just how much of their own money they keep.

I've done the work (on myself), and it is appalling the total % of taxes an everyday working class person dishes out at the EOY (relative to total income).

I like most don't have detailed solutions to all of it but one idea I think could be made to work would be to give all tax payers a 1 year vacation on all federal income tax, say every 10 years or through whatever term can be made to work for us & them. Obviously lots of work to ensure enough tax coverage with a plan like that but alternative ideas like that can work, if they wanted it to.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

That seems to be the Republicans candidates' shitheel plan. Effectively raise taxes on the middle class. Whine about the tax code while never admitting that it's convoluted nature benefits the wealthy since they can afford an army of lawyers to sniff out every loophole. They also never made any attempt to close those loopholes and have made sure the rich get all they want no natter the cost. "Tax cuts for the job creators" what a load of bullshit fed to morons who believe it.

[e0y2e3]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 83554.html

This is pretty much why no real conversation will ever be had in here.

I called for the need for some outside of the box thinking in this country and cited OWS as a failed example to do so, you and OJ have managed to rip OWS In every single post thus far.

I never once supported Obama's tax policy, in fact I asked of the opposite by stating that we (as a society) need to start discussing the tax issues. Yet I get that link dropped in.

I never once claimed that what the NYT did was anything beyond handing the public CONCRETE examples of how these practices unfold while using a cocksucker every in America knows, due to his last name.

You guys just spin and limp dick your way back to the inevitable...... "HAIL ROMNEY!!!"

[Ziner]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 83554.html

This is pretty much why no real conversation will ever be had in here.

I called for the need for some outside of the box thinking in this country and cited OWS as a failed example to do so, you and OJ have managed to rip OWS In every single post thus far.

I never once supported Obama's tax policy, in fact I asked of the opposite by stating that we (as a society) need to start discussing the tax issues. Yet I get that link dropped in.

I never once claimed that what the NYT did was anything beyond handing the public CONCRETE examples of how these practices unfold while using a cocksucker every in America knows, due to his last name.

You guys just spin and limp dick your way back to the inevitable...... "HAIL ROMNEY!!!"

I never said you supported his policies, only posted that to demonstrate my point about how taxing the rich and talking about taxing the rich doesn't get you anywhere. You over estimate my purpose of adding that link. Barely even read it all, just wanted something to support my claim that taxing the rich 100% won't even do it. Ultimately if someone is really really serious about the deficit it will require massive cuts to places that never get cut AND tax cuts to more than the wealthy. The once you tap the wealthy there aren't many more places to turn and if the wealthy dont even get you close then what are the other options. There isn't really anything out of the box to be had. Money in < Money out, all of which is exacerbated by a recession that has little signs of ending.

Serious question, how many times have I even uttered Romney's name? I bet it is less than 10. I don't hate the guy, but I am hardly a cheerleader. Frankly not all that impressed with any of the candidates and if I had my choice I'd pick Huntsman to be the nominee.

[e0y2e3]

Ziner, you don't talk about any of the candidates but DAMNÑ if you don't drop all their talking points. As soon as the election heats up we all know what you are going to post.

And I'm glad you want to use my point, that making people pay what they owe by reforming tax code is at the top of the stream" to talk about how much money we spend.....

Nothing here is mutually exclusive, pretending like an 18% effective tax rate for the rich should be allowed to go on beyond tomorrow because you hate social security is partisan shit.

I asked for a movement that actually contemplates how to figure out what tax should be, who should pay what and how to make sure everyone pays.... outside of the box reform.

You spit partisan shit about CUT EXPENSES!@$!@$!! when I never even mentioned them.

Tear it all down and build it all back up, it's our only shot.

[Ziner]

Ziner, you don't talk about any of the candidates but DAMNÑ if you don't drop all their talking points. As soon as the election heats up we all know what you are going to post.

And I'm glad you want to use my point, that making people pay what they owe by reforming tax code is at the top of the stream" to talk about how much money we spend.....

Nothing here is mutually exclusive, pretending like an 18% effective tax rate for the rich should be allowed to go on beyond tomorrow because you hate social security is partisan shit.

I asked for a movement that actually contemplates how to figure out what tax should be, who should pay what and how to make sure everyone pays.... outside of the box reform.

You spit partisan shit about CUT EXPENSES!@$!@$!! when I never even mentioned them.

Tear it all down and build it all back up, it's our only shot.

Sometimes you are just exhausting to reply to.

I opine what I think, believe and know, not talking points. I have yet to watch a debate, I watch far more MSNBC than you'd believe, and other than during commercials of more interesting shows at the gym I never watch Fox News. I couldnt even tell you what channel it is on DTV. Believe me or don't thats cool but it just distracts from this intelligent conversation that you desire

I think your problem is you don't actually read what people type, and very much like JB you create caricatures of people. I never pretend that anything is mutually exclusive and if you find evidence of such I'd love to see it, until then stick to defending your own positions. Saying it doesnt matter what the fuck you do with the tax rates of the rich is not the same thing you are speaking to. I even said a week ago or so that I am to the point where I'd prefer to see them raised and while you are at it cut every single tax loophole you want to complain about. Do it. Then see where we stand. Then maybe at that point the out of the box thinking will commence concerning what we spend and will spend in the future. That isn't talking points that is a real concern that isnt made up by some right wing boogeyman. Surely tax increases and spending cuts will need to be a part of any plan.

If you actually cared about intelligent conversation you'd drop all the horseshit about everyone being partisan but you...and JB. When Boehner didn't take Obamas proposed debt deal with 1 trillion in tax increases for 3 trillion in spending cuts I thought he was a complete idiot. That is a deal that should have gotten done. I also think the Simpson Bowles plan that Obama commissioned but ignored is probably the best plan out there.

I can't wait for you to spin this in to partisanism or you could demonstrate your superior intelligence to everyone everywhere and actually discuss what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

MSNBC is shit.

Watch The Young Turks on YouTube. They're the best news source for progressives out there, and they're funny.